N.G.Das,J — This is an appeal filed by the plaintiffs.namely Shri Chhango-mol Gupta, Sri Devendra Kumar Agarwal and Shri Sushil Kumar Agarwal in Title Suit No. 3 (H) of 1984 on the file of the learned Assistant District & Sessions Judge, Shillong against the judgment and decree dated 20. 11.89 dismissing the suit filed by them for specific performance of contract for sale of land measuring 5000 sq ft. along with the premises situated on it at Shillong Police Bazar under Plot No. 78 and Municipal Holding No. 37 fold) and 131 ( new). 2. The case of the plainhiffs, shortly put, is that in the year 1963 plaintiff No. took settlement of the suit premises situated at Police Bazar, Shillong apertaining to Municipal Holding No. 37 (old) and 131 (new) at a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-from Shillong Diary Farm (P) Ltd. under an agreement ( Annexure 1 ) which remained in force upto 31st December, 1964. This agreement, was however renewable upto December, 1973 and the plaintiff N-.->. 1 after taking settlement of the suit premises started restaurant business under the name and style of "Regal Restaurant" and also made some improvement of the said premises by making additions, allegations and also by constructing one shed building 'cottage' in the year 1966 with necessary permission from the Shillong Municipality and the Shiilong Diary Farm (P) Ltd. But in the year, 1972 the Managing Director, Shillong Diary Firm (P) Ltd. by his letter dated 30th April. 1972 ( Annexure A) informed the plaintiff No. 1 that Shillong Diary Farm (P) Ltd. sold the suit premises including garage and cottage to defendant No. 1 and also requested him to pay the rent to her with effect from 1st of May, 1973. 3. So. on 1st December, 1973, plaintiff No. 1 made an agreement (Annexure A III ) with defendant No. I whereby the premises was settled with plaintiff No. 1 at a monthly rent of Rs. 600/- and the terms and conditions were incorporated in the agreement which took effect from 1st January. 1974 and it was renewable year to year until December, 1983. After this agreement the plaintiff No.l repaired the suit premises from time to time and also made some additions, alterations etc spending huge amount of money. 4. 600/- and the terms and conditions were incorporated in the agreement which took effect from 1st January. 1974 and it was renewable year to year until December, 1983. After this agreement the plaintiff No.l repaired the suit premises from time to time and also made some additions, alterations etc spending huge amount of money. 4. Thereafter all the plaintiffs constituted a partnership firm under the name and style "Regal Restaurant" in the year 1979 and carried on the restaurant business. But in the month of April, 1983 a portion of the suit premises was gutted by fire and as the stocking-trade of the restaurant was insured, the plaintiff firm received compensation of a sum of Rs. 19,151/-from the United Insurance Company and they were carrying on their restaurant business as before. 5. But on 10th February, 1983 defendant No. 3 who was the rent collector and care-taker of the said premises wrote a letter to plaintiff No. 1 informing him that until a new agreement is executed, the plaintiff No. 1 would have to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per mensem. Plaintiff No. 1 therefore, approached defendant No. 3 and after some persuasion and negotiation succeeded in reducing the monthly rent to Rs. 1000/- till the month of April, 1984. After this settlement the plaintiff continued their restaurant business in the suit premises. But sometime in the beginning of August, 1983 plaintiff came to know from defendant No. 3 that defendant No. 1 who used to live in U.S.A. constituted her brother defendant No. 4 Shri Carlton Reade Syiem her Attorney to negotiate the sale of the suit property along with the rest portion of the building' 6. Since plaintiff invested considerable amount of money to run the restaurant business he contacted defendant Nos.3 and 4 and expressed their desire and willingness to purchase the suit premises. After some negotiation and persuasion with defendant Nos. 3 and 4 it was settled that defendant No.4 would sell the suit premises on behalf of the defendant No. 1 at a conside­ration price of Rs. 2, 00, OOO/-. After some negotiation and persuasion with defendant Nos. 3 and 4 it was settled that defendant No.4 would sell the suit premises on behalf of the defendant No. 1 at a conside­ration price of Rs. 2, 00, OOO/-. It was also settled that plaintiff would bear the cost of stamp registration charges etc and that in his turn defendant No.4 would apply to Revenue Authority for obtaining necessary permission to transfer the land by executing deed of conveyance and also execute and register the same within 15 days from the date of receipt of the sanction of transfer. But unfortunately on 24.4.84 plaintiff No.l received a letter from defendant No.4 to the effect that suit property has already been sold to defendant No.2 Srimati Ewismora Marbaniang. It is therefore, alleged by the defendant that this sale was in gross violation of the oral contract and that defendant No. 2 purchased the suit property with full knowledge of the aforesaid oral contract. 7. Therefore the plaintiff prayed for a decree for specific performance of the contract for sale of the suit premises by executing and registering deed of conveyance in favour of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have also prayed for cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.2. 8. The defendant Nos. 1 and 4 resisted the suit by filing a joint written statement. They denied all the material averments of the plaint and contended further that defendant never entered into any sort of agreement with the plaintiff for sale of the suit property to them and that plaintiffs never expressed their desire and willingness to purchase the suit property. It was contended that the story of oral agreement set-forth by the plaintiffs in their plaint was absolutely false and fabricated and that it was nothing but an endeavour to stop enhancement of rent and to avoid eviction. It was also averred that suit was not maintainable in its present forum and that it was barred by principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence. The plaintiffs also contended that there was no cause of action and the suit was bad for misjoinder of the parties. Hence the suit was liable to be dismissed with costs. 9. Defendant Nos. It was also averred that suit was not maintainable in its present forum and that it was barred by principles of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence. The plaintiffs also contended that there was no cause of action and the suit was bad for misjoinder of the parties. Hence the suit was liable to be dismissed with costs. 9. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 also contested the suit by filing separate written statements and alike defendants 1 and 4 and they also denied all the material averments of the plaint and contended further that defendants 1 and 4 never made any sort of agreement or contract with the plaintiffs for sale of the suit property to them. 10. On the above contentions the learned trial Court framed 5 issues for determination of the suit. Out of these five issues, the most important issue is issue No.3 which is "whether there was at any time any agreement or contract of sale of the suit premises to the defendant No. 1 through defendant No.4". Learned Assistant District & Sessions Judge, however, determined all the issues against the plaintiffs after necessary discussion of the evidence on record and dismissed the suit. The points which were argued and actually arises for determination are : 1. Whether defendant No.l entered into an agreement with the plaintiff^ for sale of the suit premises ? 1. Whether defendant No.2 purchased the suit property with knowledge of the previous contract for sale between the plaintiff and defendant No.l ? 11. Learned counsel Mr. Sen appearing on behalf of the appellants has addressed us on two points. It is firstly contended that the evidence led by the defendants suffered from a number of infirmities which, if considered in context of the evidence led by the plaintiffs will show that defendant Nos. 3 and 4 entered into an oral agreement for sale of the suit premises. It is secondly contended by the learned counsel, Mr. Sen that it will also be apparent from the evidence on records that defendant No. 2 had prior know­ledge about this oral agreement. 12. 3 and 4 entered into an oral agreement for sale of the suit premises. It is secondly contended by the learned counsel, Mr. Sen that it will also be apparent from the evidence on records that defendant No. 2 had prior know­ledge about this oral agreement. 12. We are, however, not impsessed by the submissions of the learned counsel as the principle of law in a case of this nature is that plaintiff is to prove his case and that he cannot depend upon the weakness of the case of his adversaries or that his adversaries failed to prove their case. It is, however, not disputed that an oral agreement is valid and enforceable. But such oral agreement requires clearest and most satisfactory evidence. 13. The evidence led by the plaintiffs in support of their claim covered by the above two points confined to the evidence of PW 1 C.N. Gupta, PW 2 B.P. Singh and PW 3 Devendralal Agarwalla. The case of the plaintiffs as would be apparent from para 9 of the plaint is that sometime in the month of August, 1983 it was settled between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 3 as rent collector and defendant No. 4, a representative and Attorney for and on behalf of the defendant No. 1 that the suit premises would be sold to plaintiffs at a consideration price of Rs, 2,00,000/-. 14. PW 1 deposed that in the month of August, 1983, he approached defendant No. 4 and expressed his desire and willingness to purchase the suit property. According to him at the time of talk his son Devendralal Agarwalla (PW 3) and B.P. Singh (PW 2) were present and that in their presence defen­dant Nos. 3 and 4 agreed to sell the suit property to him at a consideration price of Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is, therefore, apparent from his evidence in chief that his son Devendralal Agarwalla and B.P. Singh were present when he held the discussion with defendant Nos. 3 and 4 But PW 2 Sri B.P. Singh stated in his deposition that out of the 4 defendants only defendant No. 1 namely Smti. Marybelle Reade Syiem was present at that time. During cross examination he has quite unequivocally stated that he had no occasion to meet Shri Carlton Reade Syiem. Admittedly,this B.P. Singh is a friend of PW 1 but he contradicts the version of PW 1. Marybelle Reade Syiem was present at that time. During cross examination he has quite unequivocally stated that he had no occasion to meet Shri Carlton Reade Syiem. Admittedly,this B.P. Singh is a friend of PW 1 but he contradicts the version of PW 1. PW 3 who is the son of PW 1 has stated in his cross examination that the talk took place at about 10 or 11 AM. He has also stated that he cannot remember the day or date when that talk took place. It is, therefore, apparent from the discussions made above that the evidence led by these 3 witnesses suffer from contradictions. Learned counsel Mr. Das appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that PWs are unable to say the date and time when the agreement took place although the matter involved an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. 15. Learned counsel Mr. Sen, however, took us through the evidence of defendant No. 3 Sri Kamini Kumar Gupta who has been examined as Court witness and laid emphasis on the cross examination where it was elicited from him that he asked plaintiff No. 1 to give on offer. But we do not think that this statement can improve the case of the plaintiff in any way. Mr. Sen has further argued that this witness also stated in his cross-examination that plaintiff No. 1 expressed his willingnes to him and defendant No. 4 to purchase the suit property. But the evidence of PW 1 does not show that he made such statement in his deposition. Even if plaintiffs made an offer, it will not be an agreement unless the offer is accepted. We have already stated above that such an oral agreement requires clearest and most satisfactory evidence. But discussion of the evidence of material witnesses, we have made above will show that plaintiffs led evidence not only of a general and vague type but also there are contradictions on the material aspect of this case. It is stated under para 9 of the plaint that there was some negotiation with defendant Nos. 3 and for arriving at the agreement but no iota of evidence has been adduced in support of that negotiation. 16. The second contention of Mr. Sen is that defendent No. 2 Smti, Marybelle Reade Syiem (PW I) purchased the suit property with knowledge of the prior contract. But there is no supporting evidence. 3 and for arriving at the agreement but no iota of evidence has been adduced in support of that negotiation. 16. The second contention of Mr. Sen is that defendent No. 2 Smti, Marybelle Reade Syiem (PW I) purchased the suit property with knowledge of the prior contract. But there is no supporting evidence. PW 2, B.P. Singh did not utter a single word on this point. He nowhere stated that defendant No. 2 namely, Smti. Ewismora Marbaniang had the prior knowledge of that agreement. Similarly PW 2 simply stated that he had talk with one Mr. Marbaniang who expressed to him that his relation wanted to purchase the suit property. He did not make any categorical statement that he had any sort of discussion with PW 2 in respect of their agreement to purchase the suit premises. 17. Coming now to the evidence of defendants it will be found from the evidence of defendant No. 2 Smti Ewismora Marbaniang who has been examined as DW 1 that she purchased the suit land from defendant No. 4 at a consideration price of Rs.2,00,000/-. The witness has been cross examined but nothing material could be elicited from her in support of the contention of the oral agreement. DW 2 Calton Reade Syiem, has deposed that the property in question belonged to his youngest sister Marybellc Reade Syiem who lives in U.S.A.and that Kamini Kumar Gupta used to look after the property as a care-taker. He has also deposed that hi s sister executed a power of Attorney in his favour to sell the suit property by executing necessary deed of sale in favour of defendant No. 2 and accordingly after obtaining necessary permission from the Govt. he executed the sale deed marked as Ext.B. He has quite categorically stated that he had no occasion to meet PW 2, B.P. Singh. A lengthy cross-examination has been showered on this witness but we do not find any material in support of the contention of the plaintiffs. Similarly DW 3 has stated that after necessary permission the suit property was purchased by defendant No.2 by dint of Ext.B - sale deed. The witness has been cross-examined at great length. During cross-examination it was suggested to him that the plaintiffs offered Rs. 2,00,000/- to DW 3 for purchase of the suit property. He denied the suggestion. Similarly DW 3 has stated that after necessary permission the suit property was purchased by defendant No.2 by dint of Ext.B - sale deed. The witness has been cross-examined at great length. During cross-examination it was suggested to him that the plaintiffs offered Rs. 2,00,000/- to DW 3 for purchase of the suit property. He denied the suggestion. Similarly it was also suggested to this witness that plaintiff entered into an agreement for sale of the suit property with defendant No. 4. But the witness denied the suggestion. This suggestion cannot help the plaintiff in any manner as there is practically nothing in the evidence of PW 2 which may support the suggestion. 18. So, on analysis of the evidence as discussed above we find that the learned Assistant District & Sessions Judge made a correct finding that there was no oral agreement as alleged by the plaintiff. For the aforesaid reasons we are of the view that the appeal is devoid of any merit. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.